45:0480(38)AR - - Army, Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia and NAGE Local R4-6 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v45 p480



[ v45 p480 ]
45:0480(38)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


45 FLRA No. 38

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

(Agency)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R4-6

(Union)

0-AR-2235

DECISION

July 9, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Sol M. Yarowsky filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.1/

A grievance was filed after the Agency failed to assign overtime work to certain bargaining unit employees. The Arbitrator denied the grievance. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award deficient.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

In connection with work requirements in preparation for Operation Desert Storm/Shield, the Agency assigned certain overtime work to military personnel. A grievance was filed claiming that, by failing to assign the work to unit employees, the Agency violated Article 10, Section 1, of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.2/ When the grievance was not resolved, it was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency did not violate Article 10, Section 1, of the parties' agreement. As relevant here, the Arbitrator found, based on the Agency's work needs, that the Agency was not required to assign the disputed overtime work to unit employees. The Arbitrator also found that the Agency's "discretion in assigning overtime work was not abused and was 'consistent with work load requirements[]'" under Article 10, Section 1. Award at 7. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.3/

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union asserts that the Arbitrator misinterpreted Article 10, Section 1. Specifically, the Union asserts that the portion of the section addressing workload requirements "has no applicability" in this case. Exceptions at 18. The Union also argues that the Arbitrator erred in failing to address the portion of the section which provides preference to employees "currently assigned the job." Id. at 19.

The Agency asserts that the Union's exception constitutes mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the agreement and does not demonstrate that the award is deficient.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

We construe the Union's arguments that the Arbitrator misinterpreted Article 10, Section 1, of the parties' agreement as a contention that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement. To establish that an award is deficient on this ground, the party making the allegation must demonstrate that the award: (1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; or (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact, and so unconnected with the wording and the purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligatio